Another Day, Another Islamist Attack: Outlaw The Preaching!

Ah, for a respite from heavy philosophizing such as pondering consciousness and the associated unconscious… We can trust the barbarians to provide us with what they passes for entertainment in the desert, namely, mayhem… (Desert raiding by nomads a la Muhammad, attacking traders and peasants, is even older than civilization…)

A French Islam practitioner attacked the Gendarmerie on the Champ Elysees. The assailant, complete with explosive, assault gun, etc. was badly burned and died at the scene (the Gendarmerie is part of the army, not the police, and is heavily armed).

Literal Islam, as depicted literally in the Qur’an, and, worse, the Hadith, is incompatible with Western civilization. This is not being insulting, unfair or racist to say so. It was explicitly designed that way by Muhammad. Muhammad expressed himself very clearly: he thought the Jews and Christians had failed to enact the Bible literally. He also wrote that the Greeks, Romans and Persians, with their empires, had prevented the Arabs to raid, for a full millennium. With Muhammad’s new religion, this was all going to change: demographics and Jihad would be cranked up.

Core Of Western Civilization Under Siege. Notre Dame is not just a cathedral built nine centuries ago. It was also where what came to be known as the “UNIVERSITY” was located, for many centuries before that. By law the Cathedral Of Paris had (the best in Europe) secular teaching in Europe, already by the Seventh Century. It was an obligatory mandate, a law imposed ordered onto all religious establishment by Salian (secular) law. When the old cathedral was demolished and replaced by the present one, the mandate went on.

That Islam is a war machine against Greco-Roman civilization (and even against the related Persian Sassanid civilization) is the incontrovertible fact, made plain in the sacred texts of Islam. It’s written black on white. Ultimately, there are thus only two outcomes: 1) Literal interpretation and preaching of Literal Islam is outlawed, and the law against preaching murder of most of the population is enforced. Or, 2) Western civilization is destroyed (as Muhammad intended explicitly to do, and that’s why he personally led the first attack against the Roman empire).

This is simple, and it should not be very hard to understand to those with independent thinking capability. Those who have not spent, let’s say one hundred hours reading the full Qur’an and the most significant parts of the Hadith, should not be considered cogent enough to disagree stridently with this (and most Muslims have not read the Qur’an, let alone the Hadith; they only know some deceiving passages which carefully avoid the gist of the message of the Messenger…) The Qur’an for example, orders “a rain of stones” on homosexuals. On this particular subject, the Qur’an quotes Lot, in the Bible’s Old Testament.

And so on. Most people nowadays belong to categories of people which the Qur’an orders to be “thrown in the fire”. The Hadith 41; 685, repeated many times in different variants, says that: …”Allah’s Messenger… : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will FIGHT against the Jews and the Muslims would KILL them…” Next time you consider Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights, and its influence beyond that, remember this…

It is possible to construct variant of “Sufi” Islam which are fully compatible with Western civilization (as found historically in Senegal). Those should be encouraged, promoted. But they have been swamped by Literal Islam, deadly enemy of civilization.

Preaching hate crimes should be considered to be a grievous crime, especially when targeting children. It does not matter if it is in the name of the Arab God, or the Aztec God Huichilobos. Preaching, or teaching hatred should be punished by very long prison sentences, and expulsion (when possible).

Notice that ordering to kill many categories of people, as the Qur’an orders to, is tantamount to order human sacrifices of most of the population. In the Roman Republic, religions ordering human sacrifices were outlawed into inexistence. So there we have a legal precedent, more than 2,000 years old.

IN THE realm of European Islam, nothing is going quite to plan. In the perfect scenario of the continent’s mainstream politicians, the law-abiding majority of Muslim citizens would be coming together now in a massive, thundering condemnation of terrorism. That in turn would create a renewed social consensus, paving the way for the defeat of terrorism in its latest, horrible forms, as it has been perpetrated in places like Nice, Brussels, Berlin, Manchester and London.

Reality turns out to be messier…

[Prime Minister] Theresa May threw out a sharp-tongued challenge to British Muslims in the aftermath of the murderous attack that began at London Bridge on June 3rd. The problem, the prime minister declared, is ideological and cultural, rather than simply a challenge for the police and security services. In her words,

There is…far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations`…The whole of our country needs to take on this extremism, and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities but as one truly United Kingdom.”

… [Hundreds of British Imams reacted…] “But look closely at the prayer leaders’ declaration, as published by the Muslim Council of Britain, and you will see that they are far from following Mrs May’s hymn-sheet. The first batch of imams to sign the “no funeral” statement added some important qualifications:

The statement should not detract from the seriousness of oppression and persecution occurring around the world, especially to Muslims, whom we remember in our prayers by day and night…It should also not detract from deeply unfortunate statements issuing forth from some quarters, which seek to implicate the entire Muslim community and the religion of Islam, or insinuate that one system of values is ontologically superior to another.

Their message to Mrs May and her government might be paraphrased as something like: “If you want a broad conversation about ideology and culture, even an embarrassing one, let’s have one. But it won’t be the sort of conversation that you want or expect. You want to talk about imams with hardline ideas about gender, sexuality and self-segregation by Muslims, because you think all that is a gateway to terrorism. Well, we want to talk about Muslim grievances, including those over British foreign policy.”

In France, meanwhile, some lines of communication that used, for better or worse, to connect mainstream politics with Muslim community groups seem to have failed. One of the most widely organised Islamic bodies in France had hitherto been called the Union of Islamic Organisations of France (UOIF). It recently vowed to rename itself the “Muslims of France”. It is regarded as being ideologically close to the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, which it denies. During the 2012 presidential poll, it backed François Hollande, the successful Socialist candidate.

This year, Marine Le Pen, a far-right presidential candidate, repeatedly alleged that the UOIF and her centrist rival Emmanuel Macron were somehow linked in a disreputable pact. The charge completely failed to stick, or to prevent his victory, but it did force its targets onto the defensive. The Muslim organisation urged people to go to the polls but made no recommendation; and, in contrast with previous years, secular politicians stayed away from the organisation…

Staying away will not be enough. The essence of the problem has to be addressed. Neither the Bible, nor the Qur’an should rule the Republic. And serious death threats should be treated as such.

Republics are best at eradicating threats. Ah, yes, but the Republic is closer to a plutocracy in all too many ways, nowadays, and that’s the crux of the matter… The media are held by plutocrats and the meta teaching of plutocrats is how, not to think (so one won’t bother them). Then they can be like Amazon, telling you everything you need, and even feeding you (Amazon just bought “Whole Foods” for 14 billion dollars).

To make it easier on plutocracy, some in the French government announced that it was OK for Google not to pay tax. And I actually talked to a high level Intel engineer at a party in Atherton, California, 48 hours ago, and he told me, and others, that he didn’t see why large companies should pay tax. He added he didn’t believe in conspiracy theories… My answer discombobulated him, deeply, and he physically left the party. I guess I am a party pooper…

Rome may have banned religions that called for human sacrifice but that never stopped the gruesome bloodletting at the Coliseum! Regardless it is clear that Islam is a religion that needs to called out for what it is and measures taken to secularize it. Too much Christianity is another problem – in god we trust is getting out of hand.

Actually the Coliseum was ordered built under Princeps Vespasianus, and completed under his sons emperors Titus (much beloved and esteemed, but died of disease within 2 years) and Domitian (completely crazed and anti-philosophical, but extremely revealing as head and peer of the other top plutocrats, as they themselves recognized at the time…)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum
So the bloody games became industrial under the fascist empire.
Most of the people who ended entertaining the public by their reactions to various tortures, were criminals, though… Let’s not forget this little detail. The 8 millions people under “jurisdictional supervision” in the USA presently, are tortured in a different way, then unavailable…

Gladiators were something else entirely. Like top slaves, top gladiators were extremely valuable. They received medical care so advanced it is studied today by researchers in medicine to figure out its secrets…

Christianism was the proximal cause of the destruction of the Roman empire, mostly for a whole bunch of indirect effects it had on the general mood. The hypocrisy, the stupidification, the collapse of the connection of the highest moral values to the Republic, the terrorism inflicted by the imperial government against all and any advanced, creative thinking, etc. Islamization is more fanatical Christianization by other means. At least so the Franks thought 13 centuries ago.

Even the most obtuse French should now understand what you are talking about regarding Islam. The Islamist calamity. Courage! Keep on with the good work! Not commenting much here, but trying to keep up with reading your excellent site, thinking about all that stuff, far from the MSM! And mind controlling facebook.

Anger and throwing a toy maybe the optimal answer.Sometimes.
The Islam believer there tried to burn 50 law enforcers. He had prepared automatic war guns, high explosives, his home, not just his car, was full of them.
Where does the analogy of a child and his toy comes in?

The Islam believer there tried to burn 50 law enforcers. He hed prepared automatic war guns, high explosives, his home, not just his car, was full of them. Where does the analogy of a child and his toy comes in?

Nathan: These people are going around with what you call “toys”, for example cars and trucks. The assassin on the Champ Elysee had rigged his car into a car bomb. This is not a case of an eye for an eye, it’s a case of people following orders in a book of assassinations.

There is a danger, indeed, that everybody goes about assassinating people, as ordered by god, or personal whim.

We know how to stop this. Because Europe had to stop this between 4 and 2 centuries ago. Muslim eyes were not taken out. Those who have eyes to read, and read the Qur’an, and the Hadith, discover they are books of assassinations. Evoking pious trite condescending non-sequiturs eludes reality: books of assassinations, and human rights violation!

Some people have zero fear, because their amygdala is dysfunctional. Similarly, people with advanced diabetes, or leprosy, have no sensation in their extremities. Fear is a mode of perception. Fearing death, fearing pain, or fearing a bad coffee are good fears.

Peace is a mode of behavior, usually enjoyed at least for hours every night. But it shouldn’t be overwhelming, lest it creates an imbalance in the human mental, social and ecological conditions. Being at peace with infamy is bad, and people enjoying that way should be “thrown into the fire” as the Qur’an orders…

The point is that both fear and peace can be good, or bad, depending upon circumstances. They are not intrinsic goods, or intrinsic bads. Not having fear, when one should be afraid, is bad, having peace, when one should be at war, is bad. Just like knives, they are tools.

the problem is religion, the belief in an anthropomorphic deity – the believers want to make everyone believe as they do or be punished if not “eliminated”. until religion can be supplanted by reason and morals, there will be anguish. supernatural explanations for reality tend to be simple minded and unable to withstand scrutiny. yet humanity has a strong tendency towards these belief systems. it must be part of an ingrained survival mechanism – like a vestigial organ.

From my point of view, two “instincts” combine (I don’t believe in “instincts” as Dominique pointed out a few days ago… But in the sense of somehow genetically given; I believe they are the fruits of fast learning and tropisms… But “instinct” is nevertheless a good concept for ethology, human or not).
One instinct is FASCISM.
The other instinct is GREED.
Then there is a new circumstance: CIVILIZATION.
Greed brings plutocracy, which then exploits the fascist instinct to stay on top, uneaten. Great fascist anthropomorphic gods arise that way (be they Huichilobos, Jesus-Jehovah-Allah-Muhammad, or Buddha (some variants of Buddhism are not any better than the worst variants of Islam… Consider Burma/Myanmar… Ceylon/Sri Lanka…))

So, unfortunately, CIVILIZATION itself is a factor in its own undermining…

Yeap. I was thinking I was going to glue up some of the exchange as an essay, but maybe, you are right, I should do more! It’s a question of amputation of humanity. Fellows such as Nathan are missing the point of humanity!!!

Problem is partly that West is poisoned by the ideology of (modern) liberalism, or progressivism, which is based around ideas and ideals (I know because I used to be a liberal myself). But nature of liberalism means that it is built upon the ignorance of reality. Problem? Liberalism as understood today is created and promoted by the plutocrats, because nation-state has proven the greatest challenge to plutocracy (indeed, democracy only ever existed at the level of city-states and nation-states). And modern liberalism is married to globalism, which is a plutocratic project. Neither liberalism nor conservatism of today (more specifically, neoliberalism and neoconservatism) have anything to do with similarly-named ideologies of the past; they had been kidnapped by the plutocracy.

Thanks Picard, and very interesting.
However, I think it’s even worse: see my exchanges with Nathan, a British white male of a rather macho persuasion (if I may say so: he does not like “androphobia”, and fights it…) From my point of view, he is a nihilist, a part nihilist. I will try to explain why in an essay…
Now some, including myself, will say that Islam is nihilist. Right.
However Islam is nihilist for exactly the same reason so many in the West are nihilist: they omit part of human ethology.
And this where Islam rises as terrible threat: Islam does NOT omit some part of the human ethological spectrum… Which PC thinking in the West presently omits… Namely many dimension having to do with war, Jihad… This is how Rome went down, after Christianism had turned the entire Roman state into a turn-the-other cheek impotent nihilistic, apocalyptic ectoplasm… Instead of going secular and ferocious, as the Franks wanted, very clearly… See Teutomer, Richomeres and Arbogast…https://www.geni.com/people/Flavius-Richomeres-Consul-of-Rome-384/6000000000316300005

Actually this was also one of Nietzsche’s (PBUH!) main theses. Except he didn’t have the extremely judiciously idea of calling what we call “plutocracy” (the rule of hell) plutocracy. Instead he stuck to the Middle Ages’ self-glamorous denomination of “aristocracy” (rule of the best)
Christianism wants us to crave to be sheep, so that the plutocrats who promoted Christianism could exploit and eat us… Starting with emperors Constantine, Constantius, Jovian, Valens Gratian, Theodosius… In the Fourth Century alone!!!!

Indeed. That is why I became a deist: I am not yet ready to completely reject the idea of God, but I do not trust any religion. Because religion is ideology, and ideology is a system of control: just look at how liberals (so-called “neoconservatives” included) act when someone questions the holy commands of liberalsm (“multiculturalism”, “tolerance” and islamism).